Parental and child factors associated with participation in a randomised control trial of an Internet‐assisted parent training programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parental training is an effective way to treat and prevent children's conduct problems, but knowledge of who participates in such initiatives is limited. METHOD: This study examined child and family factors associated with participation in an Internet-assisted parent training programme. The parents of 4-year-old children with high levels of disruptive behaviour in a region of Finland were offered the opportunity to participate in a randomised controlled trial of the Strongest Families Smart Website intervention (SFSW). The participants and nonparticipants were compared using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), duration of child problems and information about family demographics, which were routinely collected prior to randomisation to the SFSW and control group. RESULTS: We found that 464 (64.5%) of the 709 parents of children fulfilling the screening criteria, participated. In the multivariable analysis, nonparticipation was most strongly associated with a child only having minor difficulties [odds ratio (OR): 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5-3.0] and a shorter duration of problems, for less than 12 months (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.2-2.5), after controlling for other child factors. Nonparticipation was significantly associated with mothers spending a shorter time in the education system (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.2-2.3) after controlling for other parental factors. CONCLUSIONS: A larger percentage of parents of children with longer lasting and more severe problems seemed to be motivated to participate in this remote parent training programme. Future studies on how to encourage parents with shorter duration of education to participate in early intervention programmes are warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".